Gubmint 102: Navigating the Post Electoral Landscape in Canada

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
If you are wondering what "gubmint" is, read my earlier thread, Don't vote in the Canadian Election.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(By the way, I did vote in the election. The exciting story is in the other thread.)

A week or two before the election, Charles Adler, a well known radio talk show host with Conservative sympathies was trumpeting the expertise of the Conservative Party in fundraising and deploring the lack of expertise shown by the Liberal Party in this all important political skill.

It was as if this lack of skill, shown by the Liberals was a mark of their general ineptitude and unsuitability for governing the country.

Adler is an interesting guy, to whom I enjoy listening from time to time although I don't share many of his views. But his comments on fundraising and the connection he made between it and the suitability of the Conservative Party to govern the country, told me that he probably hadn't read Stevie Cameron's book, On the Take.

This is a very, very important book. Everyone should have two copies, in case they lose the first one and every major population center in Canada should have a Stevie Cameron library which contains nothing but copies of this book and of the Criminal Code.

If Mr. Adler had read the book, he would know that fundraising ability, in the style adopted by the Conservative Party, as outlined in the book, is an index of corruption, an index of the degree to which the party using these methods is willing to divert money from the national budget to cronies and supporters in return for contributions to the party "war chest", contributions which are a small percentage of the money to be realized by the contributor, when the party is elected.

It's like a form of "fractional reserve robbery".

Under Mulroney, the Conservatives were kings of it. That is the period in Canadian political history that Cameron looks at and documents so carefully in her book, On the Take.

The spending that the Conservative Party did at last summer's G20 conference in Toronto just reeks of the On the Take style of of spending illustrated in Cameron's book. It was just so outrageous to spend 1.1 billion dollars on a conference like that when the last one held in Pheladelphia, cost 12 million dollars.

In fact, it was so rediculous that it had an air of "dumb things we gotta do" about it, as if Stephen Harper's government were trying to fulfill a lot of financial payout obligations, all in one go.

When rail lines were being closed in Ontario, it was a classical example of "gubmint", the absurd allocation of 1.1 billion of your tax dollars, essentially to payoffs to cronies.

Now the Harper government has been elected to a majority, thanks in large part to their skill at "fundraising" (lol). In other words they have been able to purchase another term of office.

This amounts to "continuity of gubmint".

Continuity of "gubmint" is really an achievement of cronies, supporters, con men, crooked contractors and other assorted riff raff, including crooked MPs.

Continuity of "gubmint" is something we as Canadians, should be trying to put an end to.

The Liberal Party, of course, is taking stock.

Michael Ignatieff has resigned and will being going back to Harvard with a great addition to his resume, and further cachet added to his popular courses in Political Science.

Harvard is one of the greatest universities in the world and it will now be able to add another jewel to its faculty, a poly sci prof who has actually run for Prime Minister of an important country.

Canada is the neighbor that just keeps on giving.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Liberals are dreaming "Trudeau" dreams, and sounding out Justin Trudeau, seeking his views on the situation.

Trudeau, surprise, surprise, puts his finger on the Liberal Party's problems.

ca.news.yahoo.com...


Trudeau said among the challenges that lie ahead in rebuilding the Liberal party is fundraising, and he acknowledged that the Conservatives are far better at it than Liberals.


Surely, he has been misquoted.

Surely, what he meant to say is that the Conservatives are far worse at it than the Liberals, and more successful.

But I want to draw attention to the utility of this quotation from Justin Trudeau. It's like a compass bearing.

The Canadian people should know that any politician who admires the Conservative party of Canada for its fundraising ability, should be avoided like the plague.

The style of fundraising employed by the Conservative Party, under Mulroney and apparently under Harper (remember the G20 spending) is a disease that this country should be seeking to mitigate if not eradicate.

The Liberals knew they were in trouble.


Trudeau, one of only 34 re-elected Liberal MPs, said in an interview Wednesday on CBC News Network that the results were difficult to watch, but not entirely surprising. He said the Liberal party "has been in trouble for a number of years," because it hasn't been able to connect with Canadians.

"We saw this coming, although not this bad," Trudeau said.


If you intend to be just as crooked as the party you are trying to replace, you rob yourself of a major issue, a major way that you could potentially "connect with Canadians", the reduction of corruption.

Of course, Trudeau may have been talking about connecting with a select and specific group of Canadians, with deep enough pockets, who are willing to contribute to the party "war chest" in exchange for considerations in the awarding of contracts.

In other words, Canadians interested in "fractional reserve robbery".

I wish Mr. Trudeau would clarify what he meant by his comments, with reference to these issues.

That's it for today, class.

Class assignment, watch how the government spends your tax money, the national budget.

Things to look for:

One thing we already know is that most of the money has already been allocated. Watch for fraudulent demonstrations of ostensible deliberations on subjects that were decided prior to the election, behind closed doors. Watch for looney and screwy spending choices by the government. Remember these choices aren't just whimsical eccentricities. They are examples of calculated political patronage in action.
edit on 4-5-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 4 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I said before this is what we get, because it sure looked like it to me...

I believe if the Liberals wanted to win,
they would have picked someone who could have won
They wouldn't have needed to spend any money

The people would have voted for him with one add saying who he was.

finances?
Harper wanted more US like banking...look where that would have left us
Harper recieved the financial stability from the previous governments
IF Harper waited till the regular election time..
AFTER THE EXPECTED CRASH he DIDN"T TELL YOUZ about
(housing in this town just dropped like a rock in the last 6 mo
and it is going where everyone elses is. I'll wager)
he wouldn't have got elected to run in a nylon

As we see in the Libya debacle where nato is trying to snuff gadaffi
and his children
and a Canadian is leading the nato force...

...we are in lockstep in all the illegal conflickts
we are in lockstep with harmonization
we are lockstep with the Titanic...
harmonized
"as the band played on"
(check the movie for that obscure reference)
like austria was once upon a time

Thanks Harper... Martin....Bouchard and Layton too
Now though Harper has his Majoritylook out
edit on 4-5-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-5-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 

Nice post.

You could make an argument basically, that the Harper government is bought and paid for. That is the mechanism by which they get elected, using the system of "gubmint". They sell their services, not to the Canadian people, but to financial and corporate interests.

This, at its worst is fascism.

At the other extreme, when corporations and financial interests are cut off from access to tax dollars and government contracts, you have communism.

In our world we need a middle path, with rational allocation of resources, to generate economic growth without letting either extreme of interest run away with the government.

edit on 4-5-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 

good thread...
that billion and change in police money went to federalize the police and equip and take over
like the US

I used to greet my fundie buddy at work by saying Hiel Harper and saluting..
BacK when he was first discoverd and proved to be a bilderberger stooge like Martin was before him too
it used to drive him mental

He Voted RABIDLY for Harper because he represented christian familly values..
I siad of course he does
he is a LUCIFERIAN BILDERBERGER

Zionist " Luciferian" Christians...
you can't make this stuff up
He put Israel before Canada
HE WILL COME FOR EVERYONES GUNS

PS I agree the middle path
we in canada have every thing needed to be a shining example of what real people can do
that idea has some pwerful enemies
and they invented communisim and fascism
but not constitutions


edit on 4-5-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-5-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-5-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
There is nothing like a punch in the nose to get somebody interested in you and maybe even looking for a rematch or at least a way of recouping dignity in the venue where it was lost.

Is it in that spirit that Michael Ignatieff has decided to stick around, at the University of Toronto, rather than returning to Harvard?

Good for him. Don Cherry would approve. He's living by the code. Maybe he's got some steel in him, after all.






top topics
 
2

log in

join